Question

Do you think that transplanted organs could carry the personality of the donor?

Some heart transplant patients have had experiences that changed their personality that they cannot explain. A known white bigot had a black jazz musician's heart transplanted. After the operation the patient started to befriend, his previously shunned, black co-workers and found a new love of jazz music.

Investigate whether a transplanted organ can cause a change in personality or not. State your opinion and site your sources pro or con.

Answer 1

Organ donors may be doing more than just saving lives. They may be giving a 'new life' to organ transplant recipients. The most common organ transplants include the cornea, kidney, and heart — with a heart transplant ranking the highest.The heart ultimately stores memories through combinatorial coding by nerve cells, which allows the sensory system to recognize smells, according to cellular memory theory. The cell memory phenomenon, while still not considered 100 percent scientifically-validated, is still supported by several scientists and physicians. The behaviors and emotions acquired by the recipient from the original donor are due to the combinatorial memories stored in the neurons of the organ donated. Heart transplants are said to be the most susceptible to cell memory where organ transplant recipients experienced a change of heart.

1. ORGAN TRANSPLANTS RAISE QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL IDENTITY.

Because the transplanting of human organs is so new in human history having been around for only a few decades the psychological and philosophical implications  have not been deeply explored.  

Into this gap have rushed dramatic stories of people who believe they have something of the tastes, abilities, or memories of the donors who gave them a heart, a liver, a kidney, or some other organ.

2. PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT ORGANS TRANSMIT CHARACTER
WILL DECIDE NEVER TO ACCEPT ANY DONATED ORGANS.

A small minority of people exposed to the 'cellular memory' theory have been convinced by the concept to such an extent that they would never want organs donated by another person.
They would fear becoming more like the donor, which would be particularly disturbing if the donor was a prisoner or even a murderer.

Since there are always more recipients than donors, the organs will not be wasted: The donated organs will go to patients who have no such worries.

Likewise, people who believe their organs carry their identities will not donate their organs to others after they are done with them. They might feel that their beating hearts will haunt the recipients.

3. I WOULD LIKE TO DONATE MY ORGANS AFTER MY DEATH.

I do not believe that anything of my personal character is contained in the organs of my body.  I have had the same DNA since I was conceived when one sperm from my father entered one ovum in my mother. Half of my DNA came from each parent.  My parents had no choice about 'their own' DNA. None of their life-experiences affected their DNA. And they had no choice about which germ cells would unite to form each of their children. And nothing that has happened to me since those two cells united has had any effect on 'my' DNA.

In fact, nothing any of my ancestors ever did or believed (back to the emergence of life on planet Earth) has made the smallest change in the DNA in every cell of my body. Human character (good or bad) does not get encoded in one's DNA. Nothing that happened to my body or mind since the moment of conception has made any changes in 'my' DNA. We might wish to give our character to our children thru our DNA, but that never works. Our children can only receive biological facts (such as eye-color) over which we had absolutely no control.  

I believe that my life is much more the product of my free choices than of my biology given in my unique DNA. I could have lived a completely different life, even with the same DNA. My human DNA gave me a human brain, but I am responsible for what is contained in my brain. And when my brain dies, the contents of my mind all my memories, commitments, & character traits will disappear forever.

4. A BRAIN-TRANSPLANT
WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

The living human brain is the seat of human character. And if it were possible to transplant a human brain (or a whole head) onto another body, then the created individual would be identified with the brain not the body. It would be the person whose brain was used. The body would be the new biological support-system for that brain. Brain-transplants are complete science fiction, but it does no harm to imagine the implications: Under law, the donor of the body would be declared dead, as before donating any parts from a human body. But while the head or brain continued to operate, it would have all of the same memories and character of the person whose head it was before that transplant. Human brains die very quickly after they lose their blood-supply. So a head- or brain-transplant would have to take place immediately. However, head- or brain-transplants will never be considered. Thus the living organ that carries personal character the human brain will never be transferred into another body. Short of transplanting my brain into a new body, everything about my personal identity will die when my brain dies.

5. THE BELIEFS OF THE PERSON WHO RECEIVES THE ORGANS
ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

Some organs, such as the human heart, carry a lot of symbolic power. We sometimes speak as if the heart is the core of the person's identity. Some recipients of heart-transplants might believe that they will have some of the personal tastes or characteristics of the person who donated the heart.

And especially if the identity of the heart-donor is known, the recipient might begin searching for confirmation that he or she is now a different persons with someone else's heart inside. Care should be taken in selecting recipients of donated hearts to prevent any adverse psychological consequences of donation. If we have to choose among several potential recipients, those who worry about 'organ memory' might be ruled out because their fears might have an adverse impact on the transplant.

However, the human heart is not the seat of emotion or identity. The heart is a four-chamber pump for blood. It has no memory or identity separate from the body in which it operates. Sometimes parts of animal hearts are transplanted into humans. And the recipients do not become like the donor-animals. The human hand carries a lot of symbolic baggage. It is now possible to transplant whole limbs onto patients who have lost their original hands, feet, arms, or legs. Our character as human persons is not contained in our DNA. But because of strong beliefs about human biological identity, the recipient of any human gonads might think he or she was reproducing someone else's baby. And under law, there would be serious questions of biological parenthood. Therefore, human reproductive organs will probably never be transplanted, except under the most extraordinary circumstances with close family connections between the donor and the recipient. And even then, everyone will have to think deeply before any such transplant would even be considered.

And all of the people involved would need a binding written agreement about the identity of any children born as the result of transplanted gonads. Such arrangements might be similar to binding adoption.

6. PERSONAL IDENTITY IS NOT CONTAINED IN HUMAN ORGANS.

However, with respect to all other body parts, there is no ambiguity or confusion according to real natural science. Our livers, lungs, kidneys, corneas, etc. will work well in others who receive them after our deaths. And the recipients will not be burdened with anything that happened to such organs while they worked in our bodies. For example, no visual memory, no matter how vivid, will be re-experienced by someone who receives our corneas. Our organs might have been somewhat damaged by our life-styles, but such limitations can be assessed before transplant. For example, if heart-failure is the cause of death, such hearts will not be transplanted into any other person.

However, nothing of our personal history, memory, beliefs, or tastes will be transmitted in our donated organs. All elements of personal identity are contained only in our living brains.

7. 'CELLULAR MEMORY' IS NOT REAL SCIENCE.  

If we observe how 'body memory' or 'cell memory' is advocated, we observe that only one kind of evidence is collected namely stories that support the theory. This is the main feature of any form of 'advocacy science': Contrary evidence is not sought and would not be recognized if it were presented.

The advocate might claim lots of scientific credential, but the actual method of doing 'research' consists of collecting more stories supporting the hypothesis. It is like observing a lawyer arguing only one side of a case. When advocates appear in a court of law, equal time is always given to advocates of the opposite view. Such balance never appears in advocacy science.

8. REAL SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION
WOULD ASK ALL ORGAN RECIPIENTS.

Instead of collecting yet more anecdotes of organ-recipients who believe they have some memories or personality-traits of the donors, investigation that follows the scientific method would collect information from a random selection of people who have received organs that were originally operating in other bodies.

Such scientific investigation would carefully exclude organ-recipients who have been exposed to the 'cellular memory' hypothesis, since such recipients might be inclined to look for new traits that might have come from the donor. Probably the vast majority of people who have received organs will say that their lives and personalities are unchanged, except for the understandable changes that come from having a new lease on life and changes explained by the anti-rejection drugs they are receiving.

However, there will probably be no funding for such research, since the results are so obvious and predictable that research dollars should be devoted to more meaningful studies.

And no one could make a lecture-career telling audiences stories of people who remained the same after their organ transplants.

CONCLUSION

There will probably always be some small group of people who believe that human organs remember something of their original owners. But investigators who follow the scientific method will probably conclude that such claims are baseless. Advocacy science can never be refuted because the advocates have decided in advance never to recognize contrary evidence. But real science will affirm the biological dangers involved in transplanting human organs. Damaged, diseased, or defective organs might be transplanted. Transplant doctors will do their best to avoid all such problems. However, they need not worry that the moral character of the donor might be transmitted along with the heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys. All human organs have well-known biological functions. But only the living human brain contains any memories or character.